Lakers and Wiz make NBA history! Not really a good thing for the Lakers.

[WayOutWest]

Durring the recap they mentioned that this was the first time since the 3 pt shot was introduced that both teams shot better than 50% from behind the arc while shooting less than 50% from the floor.

Seems like the Lakers can not defend the 3 point line.  This could have something to do with too much help D and big guys, 6"10, gaurding SF's and other perimeter players.  I really don't like the Lakers using the 3 pt shot as the primary weapon when they need a score or are falling behind.  The Lakers have 2 or 3 of the top 10 3pt shooters in the league but they are relying way too much on that 3 pt shot.  Granted both inside threats are out right now but Kobe can still drive to the hoop considering the 3pt threats on the Lakers. 

Mixed messages in the game but at least the Lakers pull out a win after blowing a huge lead.

[Reality]

Can either team defend against the three, especially with the game on the line!!?
What a defensive joke.

While Swishers last trey was actually a two (and ruled so), who on earth was his defender guarding with Wizzys up 118-114 and then 120-117?  Fisher and Sasha are such obvious catch and shoot players with virtually no further offensive game, why did the Wiz repeatedly leave them 4-5 steps open?  Ditto Lakers D.
Also loved the call to award Kobe FTs vs Stevenson and take the Lakers from 119-120 to 121-120. The closeup of Stevensons face was priceless

[westkoast]

Im starting to go with Reality's idea that who cares about how a coach feels about that certain situation.  Put them on the line.  Force them to make 2 and give yourself another shot.  With as much as this happens to the Lakers I think its time for PJ to give up on the whole "we don't foul" idea.

[WayOutWest]

Also loved the call to award Kobe FTs vs Stevenson and take the Lakers from 119-120 to 121-120. The closeup of Stevensons face was priceless

That was cause somebody else fouled Kobe.  Kobe got fouled going up, lost control of the ball before Stevenson made a clean play on the ball.  Did you miss that part?  Or are we talking about a different play?

PJ addressed the "no foul" up 3 in regulation, that is just the type of coach he is, other coaches, like Nellie, will foul and send the guy to the line for 2.  Lakers should have won that one in regulation but a clutch shot by Caron and a bad decision by Kobe to pass instead of shooting really hurt the Lakers.

[WayOutWest]

Im starting to go with Reality's idea that who cares about how a coach feels about that certain situation.  Put them on the line.  Force them to make 2 and give yourself another shot.  With as much as this happens to the Lakers I think its time for PJ to give up on the whole "we don't foul" idea.

The percentages are in the favor of just playing solid defense, you cannot dispute that.  Obviously there are exceptions, like when a guy is unconcious from behind the arc.  There is the potential for a 4 point play as well if you screw up and the way the Lakers are playing defense I think a screw up is more likely than not.  I think the Grizz made 2 or 3 4 point plays in their game on Friday.

[westkoast]

Im starting to go with Reality's idea that who cares about how a coach feels about that certain situation.  Put them on the line.  Force them to make 2 and give yourself another shot.  With as much as this happens to the Lakers I think its time for PJ to give up on the whole "we don't foul" idea.

The percentages are in the favor of just playing solid defense, you cannot dispute that.  Obviously there are exceptions, like when a guy is unconcious from behind the arc.  There is the potential for a 4 point play as well if you screw up and the way the Lakers are playing defense I think a screw up is more likely than not.  I think the Grizz made 2 or 3 4 point plays in their game on Friday.

The % are in favor of just playing solid defense is the team actually plays solid defense.  At this point in time, the Lakers do not lol

That is why you foul as soon as it is put on the floor.   As long as the guy guarding the in bound pass doesn't allow an easy, telegraphed passed right to a player that can start the motion to shoot as he catches it you can.  For example Fish could have fouled Caron Butler before he started to get closer to the line before he was even able to elevate.

[Reality]

That was cause somebody else fouled Kobe.  Kobe got fouled going up, lost control of the ball before Stevenson made a clean play on the ball.  Did you miss that part?  Or are we talking about a different play?

Different play.  you may be thinking of end of reg.

PJ addressed the "no foul" up 3 in regulation, that is just the type of coach he is, other coaches, like Nellie, will foul and send the guy to the line for 2.  Lakers should have won that one in regulation but a clutch shot by Caron and a bad decision by Kobe to pass instead of shooting really hurt the Lakers.

  Also looked like Swisher fouled Caron and he should have been shooting the game winning FTA.  Not much of a foul but considering the crap Swisher gets....

[Reality]

Im starting to go with Reality's idea that who cares about how a coach feels about that certain situation.  Put them on the line.  Force them to make 2 and give yourself another shot.  With as much as this happens to the Lakers I think its time for PJ to give up on the whole "we don't foul" idea.

The percentages are in the favor of just playing solid defense, you cannot dispute that. 

yes it can be disputed.  Someone did a whole stats breakdown.  You teams chances on D are much better to purposely foul as long as you only allow two FTAs, dont allow 3.

The opponents chances of making the first FT, missing the 2nd, getting the rebound and scoring are nil compared to hitting a trey.

[WayOutWest]

yes it can be disputed.  Someone did a whole stats breakdown.  You teams chances on D are much better to purposely foul as long as you only allow two FTAs, dont allow 3.

The opponents chances of making the first FT, missing the 2nd, getting the rebound and scoring are nil compared to hitting a trey.

We would have to take into account a few more variables, most noteably time left on the clock.  When you are ahead you do not want to stop the clock.  Extending the game is a strategy you take when you are behind. 

How funny was the Grizz guy last game purposely trying to miss the FT but instead hit a line drive FT?

[Reality]

We would have to take into account a few more variables, most noteably time left on the clock.  When you are ahead you do not want to stop the clock.  Extending the game is a strategy you take when you are behind. 

Variables are when ahead by 3, especially if the other team has good 3 pt shooters and 30 seconds or less.  Absolutely when 10 seconds or less.  You do want to stop the clock as opposed to giving them a chance to tie.  One or two FTs does not hurt you at all, you still maintain the lead.  If you get rebound on the 2nd FTA, and you will 85% of the time lest some fluke bounce, you then must hit your FTs. 

How funny was the Grizz guy last game purposely trying to miss the FT but instead hit a line drive FT?

It was a howl.  Enjoyed seeing Marc Ivoroni getting a good laugh out of it.
http://forums.phillyarena.net/index.php?topic=4373.msg38741#msg38741

[WayOutWest]

We would have to take into account a few more variables, most noteably time left on the clock.  When you are ahead you do not want to stop the clock.  Extending the game is a strategy you take when you are behind. 

Variables are when ahead by 3, especially if the other team has good 3 pt shooters and 30 seconds or less.  Absolutely when 10 seconds or less.  You do want to stop the clock as opposed to giving them a chance to tie.  One or two FTs does not hurt you at all, you still maintain the lead.  If you get rebound on the 2nd FTA, and you will 85% of the time lest some fluke bounce, you then must hit your FTs. 

How funny was the Grizz guy last game purposely trying to miss the FT but instead hit a line drive FT?

It was a howl.  Enjoyed seeing Marc Ivoroni getting a good laugh out of it.
http://forums.phillyarena.net/index.php?topic=4373.msg38741#msg38741

The only "absolute" foul I give is when there is 5 or less.  10 gives them the opportunity to make 2 ft then foul and hope for a miss.  Obviously if the possesion starts with 24 but gets to 5 or less I would foul.  Plus take into account if there are any TO's left.  Lots of variables, if there are no TO's I take the foul, get fouled and probably miss the second FT.

[Lurker]

Also you never know when a ref will give the continuation call.  Like Larry Johnson's 4 point play a few years ago.  So you have to foul hard enough that they can't get a shot off but not too hard because you don't want a flagrant.  Also you cannot foul off the ball (thanks Shaq) as the team will get FT + the ball.  In the long run you are better off playing defense instead of fouling.

[westkoast]

Also you never know when a ref will give the continuation call.  Like Larry Johnson's 4 point play a few years ago.  So you have to foul hard enough that they can't get a shot off but not too hard because you don't want a flagrant.  Also you cannot foul off the ball (thanks Shaq) as the team will get FT + the ball.  In the long run you are better off playing defense instead of fouling.

Easy to say when your squad has been one of the best defensive teams in the league for the past 6-7 years.

I kid you not, when Laker players guard the opposing player they magically make them a better shooter.  Stevenson became Larry Bird last night.

[WayOutWest]

I kid you not, when Laker players guard the opposing player they magically make them a better shooter.  Stevenson became Larry Bird last night.

LOL.  I remeber thinking why do so many no-names have career shooting nights vs the Lakers, then I realized the common denominator was the Laker defense....AH HA!

[Lurker]

I kid you not, when Laker players guard the opposing player they magically make them a better shooter.  Stevenson became Larry Bird last night.

LOL.  I remeber thinking why do so many no-names have career shooting nights vs the Lakers, then I realized the common denominator was the Laker defense....AH HA!

So when Findawg goes into another shooting slump I'll just give good ol' boy Sternfish a call and tell him to put the Lakers on the schedule next.  He surely can't allow 15 years of collusion to go down the drain.